WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: consolidate/enhance TLB flushing interface

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: consolidate/enhance TLB flushing interface
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:38:25 +0100
Delivery-date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:39:37 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <46CB1FF2.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcgQEvjRN5fjJnwGEdy34gAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: consolidate/enhance TLB flushing interface
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618
On 21/8/07 16:25, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Folding into a single local handler and a single SMP multiplexor as
> well as adding capability to also flush caches through the same
> interfaces (a subsequent patch will make use of this).
> 
> Once at changing cpuinfo_x86, this patch also removes several unused
> fields apparently inherited from Linux.

Applied at last. I just changed the names of a few functions and added a few
comments. Also, I don't know whether you empirically evaluated CLFLUSH
versus WBINVD, but your CLFLUSH loop was actually broken because 'sz' was in
pages rather than bytes. Hence you did not CLFLUSH a big enough area (by a
large margin) and hence you would vastly underestimate the cost of the
CLFLUSH approach.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>